Time To Revive Community Ownership ?

[reborn saint]

With people like Somner9 around I'm glad the fan ownership model failed. I'm now fairly certain that it would have ended up a complete and utter disaster. The disater wouldn't have been due to Richard's input, but despite Richard's it. Atitude's and opinions like Somner's would have turned the place toxic within 12 months IMO.

Richard can walk away from SMFC with is head held high.

Not sure I agree on the Somner issue as he is a fan like the rest .....but like your view on Richard as he only had our club at heart ....like you I wish him well.

[Guest somner9]

With people like Somner9 around I'm glad the fan ownership model failed. I'm now fairly certain that it would have ended up a complete and utter disaster. The disater wouldn't have been due to Richard's input, but despite Richard's it. Atitude's and opinions like Somner's would have turned the place toxic within 12 months IMO.

Richard can walk away from SMFC with is head held high.

You gotta laugh...innit..?

You will of course be able to detail my "Attitudes & Opinions" that were contrary to:

A - fan ownership/partnership

B - Not wanting the club and support saddled with a debt of over £1.5m and rising

C - at first pledging to 10000 hours, then realising as they continually dropped off the planet, and failed to secure ONE..! Grant, Loan or investment. Calling them on their promises, lack of detailed plans and abject failure.

Richard can walk away with his head held high..? It's just he won't have a SMFC tammy available to put on said head from his tenure as commercial director.

Edited August 27, 2013 by somner9

[Guest somner9]

Didn't they have over a thousand saints fans willing to invest.

Don't let facts get in the way of making a tit of yourself.

Errr yes..! I was one of them until it became obvious that it was only saints fans that could honour their commitments.

But don't let that fact get in the way of behaving like a six year old name calling.

[thewhiteman]

Errr yes..! I was one of them until it became obvious that it was only saints fans that could honour their commitments..

the option then is not community ownership but fan ownership

the question being is it a realistic option ?

with the original £2 m being quoted for the 52% now becoming an unrealistic figure due to lack of offers and the club investment stagnating somewhat, would a reduced figure now be more acceptable and achievable for the fans, where as during the 10,000 hours era the higher figure was dependant on other grant and income sources.

or

the other option is an individual buyer taking complete control of our club and we all hope it works out ok

or

the current consortium remain in place for the foreseeable future

Edited March 3, 2014 by thewhiteman

[beyond our ken]

only feasible option is a proper philanthropist willing to set up a trust and a well administered fans forum. any fan-led option will founder on the egos and point-scoring of those who think they have some sort of super-fan status. it will take someone willing to make a one off investment and setting up a trust fund who has the tme and energy to hang around and manage the whingeing/backbiting/points-scoring tossers who think they have a say.

in that i include anyone who thinks their corpy package buys them influence and the bus-runners who hang about waiting for cameras to arrive outside the ground

the recent debacle of the fans council shows that we cant be trusted to run our own club

Edited March 4, 2014 by beyond our ken

[Vambo57]

the recent debacle of the fans council shows that we cant be trusted to run our own club

Do tell....

[beyond our ken]

mentioned in another thread, selective minuting of meetings, lack of co-operation from club officials, etc

[Bud the Baker]

The BoD/Consortium are not interested in power sharing or anything that will dilute their 52% shareholding. This leaves the Fans Council with little to do except hold fundraising events, it's not for me but it seems churlish to criticize them instead of the people who have set the agenda.

[Lord Pityme]

The BoD/Consortium are not interested in power sharing or anything that will dilute their 52% shareholding. This leaves the Fans Council with little to do except hold fundraising events, it's not for me but it seems churlish to criticize them instead of the people who have set the agenda.

This...

However theres more than one way to skin a cat!

The consortium don't hold the other 48% of the shares, consider a fan based movement to unite and buy a slice of that 48% ensuring a voice in all the club's activities, without a mountain of debt to service... You could forsee in that instance one or more of the consortium breaking ranks and throwing their load of shares in with the fan based 48%.....

The issue would be getting the right balance of people to represent the 48%... GLS made a shocking pitch at trying to effectively flog his shares through the ill-fated/non-funded bid, could he be trusted to represent the fans as well as others? Or would it be a mutual sausage roll thieving elitist group living off the fans investment?

It could be done, but would need as Beyond Our Ken suggests at least one wealthy individual who would ensure the fans voice was not only heard but remained the loudest.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Lord Pityme

[elvis]

lets not kid ourselfs if anyone is going to buy us its not going to be to make cash so if they are in advanced talks like Danny says i would expect they are Saint Mirren minded people.

[Drew]

lets not kid ourselfs if anyone is going to buy us its not going to be to make cash so if they are in advanced talks like Danny says i would expect they are Saint Mirren minded people.

When did Danny talk about this?

[Robo]

This...

However theres more than one way to skin a cat!

The consortium don't hold the other 48% of the shares, consider a fan based movement to unite and buy a slice of that 48% ensuring a voice in all the club's activities, without a mountain of debt to service... You could forsee in that instance one or more of the consortium breaking ranks and throwing their load of shares in with the fan based 48%.....

The issue would be getting the right balance of people to represent the 48%... GLS made a shocking pitch at trying to effectively flog his shares through the ill-fated/non-funded bid, could he be trusted to represent the fans as well as others? Or would it be a mutual sausage roll thieving elitist group living off the fans investment?

It could be done, but would need as Beyond Our Ken suggests at least one wealthy individual who would ensure the fans voice was not only heard but remained the loudest.

I'm all in favour of a fan's group acquiring a significant shareholding in the club (and would put my tenner a month in if it came to it), but I'm not so sure that any of the consortium will break ranks. I also don't see the other 48% being united, if for no other reason than Ken McGeogh still having a large holding.

I think, unless the wealthy benefactor weighs in ( and I won't hold my breath), then the only realistic avenue to fan ownership is by setting up a fund with the aim of incremental purchases of shares. This would be a long term approach and we would need to accept the current model of ownership for the time being, but at least having the fund in place would provide some sort of insurance should things go wrong, a la Hearts, Rangers, Dunfermline etc.

[elvis]

When did Danny talk about this?

Drew it was in the PDE last week

[Stuart Dickson]

How would an incremental purchase of shares work though Robo? Remember the consortium isn't issuing new shares and if they sold their existing ones it would mean that they would quite quickly relinquish their majority shareholding at the club.

I've got to admit I don't know what the solution would be. The consortium aren't going to give their shares away despite the business being pretty much worthless. The fans showed through the 10000Hours project that they are in general willing to put money in to buy the club but the comments around this seemed to also show that they didn't want that money being used to service a loan so that the consortium members walk away with a substantial pile of cash. Unless some compromise can be reached I can't see any alternative other than for the current board to continue in situ whilst continuing to tout their majority shareholding around to any interested buyer - especially not since most St Mirren fans appear to be quite happy for the current board to continue for as long as they have to anyway.

While I would love to think that fans buying up the 48% shareholding might break the consortium, I don't think that would happen either. Apart from the fact that many small shareholders don't want to relinquish their worthless piece of paper for sentimental reasons, I think that all you would be doing is paying inflated prices to get to the point where you still have no power unless you're willing to come up with a pretty significant bid to break the consortium.

I don't like the idea of having a fund incase things go wrong because that lands up being abused by those in power. We've seen that at St Mirren with the SMiSA members money with t-shirt and towel gate and with the money being used to fund the dome.

[Robo]

How would an incremental purchase of shares work though Robo? Remember the consortium isn't issuing new shares and if they sold their existing ones it would mean that they would quite quickly relinquish their majority shareholding at the club.

Yeah there's no way the consortium would sell a portion of their holding, or do anything to dilute their majority, so any purchase would have to come from the 48%. Perhaps this could be done via a tender offer where shareholders would be offered a fair price for their shares, up to a aggregate value, and it would be up to the individuals whether they accept or not. There could be maybe be an option to exchange shares for an interest in the fans group/co-op.

While I would love to think that fans buying up the 48% shareholding might break the consortium, I don't think that would happen either. Apart from the fact that many small shareholders don't want to relinquish their worthless piece of paper for sentimental reasons, I think that all you would be doing is paying inflated prices to get to the point where you still have no power unless you're willing to come up with a pretty significant bid to break the consortium.

Agreed, I don't think there's any chance the consortium will break ranks, and your right that most, if not all, small shareholders are in it for sentimental reasons. The ones I reckon would be most likely to sell are the larger shareholders - maybe messers McGeoch and Scott - and those who buy into the idea of fan ownership. In the long term the situation would need to be reassessed once new owners are in place.

I don't like the idea of having a fund incase things go wrong because that lands up being abused by those in power. We've seen that at St Mirren with the SMiSA members money with t-shirt and towel gate and with the money being used to fund the dome.

A fund would need to have rules put in place at the outset about what money can be spent on. Something along the lines of only allowing spending on share purchases unless 75% of members vote in favour of an alternative spending proposal. I agree, if a fund was set up and allowed to make donations to the club, then I wouldn't be interested in contributing - while fundraising has its place it would need to be kept separate from this type of thing. Edited March 4, 2014 by Robo

[Lord Pityme]

Yeah there's no way the consortium would sell a portion of their holding, or do anything to dilute their majority, so any purchase would have to come from the 48%. Perhaps this could be done via a tender offer where shareholders would be offered a fair price for their shares, up to a aggregate value, and it would be up to the individuals whether they accept or not. There could be maybe be an option to exchange shares for an interest in the fans group/co-op.

Agreed, I don't think there's any chance the consortium will break ranks, and your right that most, if not all, small shareholders are in it for sentimental reasons. The ones I reckon would be most likely to sell are the larger shareholders - maybe messers McGeoch and Scott - and those who buy into the idea of fan ownership. In the long term the situation would need to be reassessed once new owners are in place.

A fund would need to have rules put in place at the outset about what money can be spent on. Something along the lines of only allowing spending on share purchases unless 75% of members vote in favour of an alternative spending proposal. I agree, if a fund was set up and allowed to make donations to the club, then I wouldn't be interested in contributing - while fundraising has its place it would need to be kept separate from this type of thing.

So a ring fenced fund (co-op) with the explicit purpose of purchasing/increasing shareholding on an incremental basis..?

I still think you would need someone like Mcgeoch or Scott to sell/transfer their shares into it to build up a head of steam and show the fans group had a voice, and were moving towards majority ownership.

[beyond our ken]

The BoD/Consortium are not interested in power sharing or anything that will dilute their 52% shareholding. This leaves the Fans Council with little to do except hold fundraising events, it's not for me but it seems churlish to criticize them instead of the people who have set the agenda.

the criticism of the council is incidental to my point, it was directed as much at how the council works with the club as it was at the people on it. It is actually more of an observation or comment than a criticism

the current board are probably the last remaining group of people who have the acumen as well as the shareholding and who can actually be arsed about doing something for the club. there is no-one else out there who would take the club on in the way they did. any other group of business people is far more likely to be looking to extract an income of some sort from St Mirren. The best option for growth is if someone comes in with the cash to buy the shares, at the same time having enough to prime the pumps for setting up a trust that holds money that can be drip-fed into the club to supplement other income and invest in profitable activities and assets as well as in the playing staff, youth development and community involvement. I reckon that would take 4-8 million pounds. while many would have the time, the vision and the energy to do that, few would be able to lay their hands on the cash without raising debt that they can transfer to the club. out of those with the cash i suspect none would see St Mirren as the best option for carrying the club forward. I should add that the primary focus would need to be the football club, anyone seeking to use the club as a platform for a socal enterprise venture would fail as the football sid ewould slowly slide down the priorities list

Edited March 5, 2014 by beyond our ken

[Robo]

So a ring fenced fund (co-op) with the explicit purpose of purchasing/increasing shareholding on an incremental basis..?

I still think you would need someone like Mcgeoch or Scott to sell/transfer their shares into it to build up a head of steam and show the fans group had a voice, and were moving towards majority ownership.

Yes, with the added benefit of having funds available should we find ourselves in the situation Dunfermline, Gretna etc were in, rather than having to go throught the frantic fund raising that would be needed otherwise.

I think you're right about getting a some sort of significant shareholding early on, and that would be in the hands of the existing holders so couldn't be guaranteed. Would need discussions with the various larger shareholders outwith the consortium (SMISA aswell? I've never been clear about their desire for fan ownership).

[Bud the Baker]

the criticism of the council is incidental to my point,

I realized that it's why I didn't directly quote you in my post.

[Lord Pityme]

Yes, with the added benefit of having funds available should we find ourselves in the situation Dunfermline, Gretna etc were in, rather than having to go throught the frantic fund raising that would be needed otherwise.

I think you're right about getting a some sort of significant shareholding early on, and that would be in the hands of the existing holders so couldn't be guaranteed. Would need discussions with the various larger shareholders outwith the consortium (SMISA aswell? I've never been clear about their desire for fan ownership).

Say a major shareholder could be persuaded to come on board, and be either wholly representative of the fans, or willing to essentially gift there shareholding and influence. If an emergency arose we would still have the issue of how to plug the 300-500k shortfall the club seems to encounter most seasons...

If a fund were established to purchase shares, the big problem is the temptation to allocate funds in times of shortfall... with all respect the current BoD have had cash injections from Smisa without any shares/influence going the other way... Thats the biggie for me, and one that was hopelessly overlooked/ignored with the last takeover proposal.

A bit like Hearts current situ where it's planned all fan donations will be channelled into day-to day running costs before they are allowed to buy back shares from Mrs Budge who will have a floating charge over club and stadium.

If Hearts miss out on a couple of promotions (or worse) they may never be in a position to buy her out as all the funds would be frittered away on a dilapidated stadium and ever weakening squad.

[Robo]

Say a major shareholder could be persuaded to come on board, and be either wholly representative of the fans, or willing to essentially gift there shareholding and influence. If an emergency arose we would still have the issue of how to plug the 300-500k shortfall the club seems to encounter most seasons...

If a fund were established to purchase shares, the big problem is the temptation to allocate funds in times of shortfall... with all respect the current BoD have had cash injections from Smisa without any shares/influence going the other way... Thats the biggie for me, and one that was hopelessly overlooked/ignored with the last takeover proposal.

A bit like Hearts current situ where it's planned all fan donations will be channelled into day-to day running costs before they are allowed to buy back shares from Mrs Budge who will have a floating charge over club and stadium.

If Hearts miss out on a couple of promotions (or worse) they may never be in a position to buy her out as all the funds would be frittered away on a dilapidated stadium and ever weakening squad.

I'm not overly familiar with the club financies - I've assumed that it's being run on a break even basis. Presumably the 300-500k you're referring to is a cashflow issue rather than a loss? If so, that would still have to be met by the owners/directors until such time as the co-op has a majority holding. Once the co-op has it's majority, the fund could be opened up to allow for loans to the club or for capital investment as the members see fit.

There would definitely need to be strict controls in place to prevent money being donated or loaned recklessly, regardless of the temptation to do so.

[Stuart Dickson]

The annual accounts include the depreciation of the assets (stadium, pitch equipiment, etc) which will help explain the large "losses".

At some stage the stadium will require maintenance and equipment will need to be replaced and St Mirren need to start to build a fund to take care of that. My view is that our wages-turnover ratio is too high. We are not earning enough prize money from the league positions.

IIRC at the AGM SG said that after all the player bonuses and expenses had been paid the club only made around £100K from the League Cup win.

Either the players wages & bonuses are too high - or the hotel accomodation & bar bill at the Glynhill for the club staff after the final was excessive!

Surely there is more scope to increase turnover rather than cut the wage bill Slash.

[beyond our ken]

The annual accounts include the depreciation of the assets (stadium, pitch equipiment, etc) which will help explain the large "losses".

At some stage the stadium will require maintenance and equipment will need to be replaced and St Mirren need to start to build a fund to take care of that. My view is that our wages-turnover ratio is too high. We are not earning enough prize money from the league positions.

IIRC at the AGM SG said that after all the player bonuses and expenses had been paid the club only made around £100K from the League Cup win.

Either the players wages & bonuses are too high - or the hotel accomodation & bar bill at the Glynhill for the club staff after the final was excessive!

the bit in bold raises some questions for me, if the bonuses were really high then that certainly helps explain why some players were in indifferent form for league games but were throrougly fired up for the cup run.

there is also the issue of expenses, did we spend big on things like a training camp, sports psychologists, fitness experts, etc? again, this might help explain the difference between league and cup form.

I think it would be good to have a proper review of season 2012/13 to see what the difference is between a high-performing team and a team of also rans that just so happens to be the same bunch of people. that is the sort of thing that will help us move forward as a club.

intersting that danny questioned why the team can have a successful spell and then fail to kick on with any great passion, commitment or even belief until such times as the shit really hits the fan or we stumble our way into a cup-contender situation. can it be that everyone at the club buys in to the image of a maverick bunch who flit between extreme highs and perilous lows? The top leadership at the club may be resting on their league cup laurels, did they rest on the success of promotion and the deal to sell Love st for a while. i actually enjoyed Gus's promotion team immensely, which was followed by us starting well and staying in the top quarter of the SPL for a while before some sort of bubble burst and we free-fell to the bottom 2 or 3 very rapidly. Why did the bubble burst then, just as it has this season? If we dont suss that one out then we will continue to bobble up and down whoever the manager is

[Bud the Baker]

The annual accounts include the depreciation of the assets (stadium, pitch equipiment, etc) which will help explain the large "losses".

At some stage the stadium will require maintenance and equipment will need to be replaced and St Mirren need to start to build a fund to take care of that. My view is that our wages-turnover ratio is too high. We are not earning enough prize money from the league positions.

IIRC at the AGM SG said that after all the player bonuses and expenses had been paid the club only made around £100K from the League Cup win.

Either the players wages & bonuses are too high - or the hotel accomodation & bar bill at the Glynhill for the club staff after the final was excessive!

Do you know if this figure includes merchandizing?

[buddiecat]

mentioned in another thread, selective minuting of meetings, lack of co-operation from club officials, etc

yes i mentioned this in another thread, most fan council members are there to do what they can to help the club and fans, but the promise in the constitution to be a bridge between fans and club has never really been met imo,the main focus is on fund raising, also i am sure the club needed a fans council in place to enable access to community funding etc, the lack of minutes being posted on the fans council page on the O F can possibly be explained by what i heard on saturday - the fans council members have been asked by the club to sign a confidentiality clause of some sort which would exclude them from the council if they broke it, i cannot understand why they would discuss club business with a fans council and ask them not to discuss it with fans.

The "superfans" you speak of are well represented on the fans council, and yes they do seem to have the idea that they can do what they want and expect to be treated more favourably by the club, they are corporate types and can be summed up by the comment i heard at one meeting last year, "charge the same for the christmas lottery this year but cut the prizes by half,THEY will still buy the tickets"